[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: germaine ]

quote:

---

"We can't lock everybody up forever or we will just turn back to the sort of society that founded Australia in the first place, with transportation and ridiculous sentences for minor crimes."

---

Minor crimes? Obviously this ass has never been raped

Often the sentence given in court may well have many factors (punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation) taken into consideration and in this particular case, as horrific as it sounds, one has to also consider what other similar and less similar crimes have been given in sentencing - for instance, if a one-on-one rape is normally given 5 to 10 years with a mandatory period of 3 years (which does sound to me ridiculously low, but the UK is, I think, very unforgiveably slack when it comes to sentencing for rape), then this may be comparably very harsh.

You say:

quote:

---

My thoughts are that even a High School Boy of 13 or 14 knows right from wrong

---

But, as a group action, and perhaps as an impressionable younger member of the group, his responsibility for his actions may not be as clearcut as you imply. At 20, he is well past the age of criminal responsibility, and is considered an adult in every other sphere of his life, so his age is irrelevant as far as culpability goes, but, and I can see this point, if the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate (and like it or not, this is one of the reasons for it), then an overly long sentence can be counterproductive on that front. Some would also argue that 40 years is enough punishment for rape, others that no amount of time is enough punishment, and that the punitive aspect is not the most important part of this sentence - it may be extremely long as an attempt at deterrence, as a signal of what society finds unacceptable, though even here does that imply that somehow one-on-one rape is more acceptable than gang rape?

In fact, as a member of a group rather than an individual, and perhaps as not the leader of the group, then maybe he is less culpable than others - what were the other sentences? What role did he play in the rape - was he an instigator or the follower of the crowd?

I guess it depends what you prefer the aim of this sentence to be. Do you just see it as punitive and if so, do you think 40 years is enough punishment and if not, what would you prefer? Do you agree with the principle of rehabilitation, and if so, for all crimes or just some?

Would you like to eventually see remorse and a desire on his part to make a better life for himself than he has, or would you like to lock him up and throw away the key?

Rape is a horrendous crime, and sentencing in my opinion is far too light and indicates that some parts of society are not taking it seriously enough. This is not a case like that, but the harshness of the sentence must have a purpose and if that purpose is ever to rehabilitate him, then I would say 40 years is too long. If its purpose is only to punish, and deter, then 40 years is not too long.

If you do believe in forgiveness, then I would say you are being too unforgiving (though it is understandable why).

EDITED TO ADD:

All the above was written prior to reading the article. Having now read it, it is clear he was the leader, that he showed no remorse and the judge seems to have seen both punishment and deterrence as the underpins of his sentencing, and I think he was absolutely right. This is an example where forgiveness must take a back seat, I feel.

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: Apemantus ]

This is one of those instances, where I cannot help but say:

quote:

---

[not that it matters what ethnic/cultural background the men are from]

---

I want to address this. I think it does in many cases. The rates of conviction of rape are generally higher when the accused is a man of colour. Which really confirms for me, that the rape laws as they stand do more to protect men in power than they do victims.

If we were a pack of animals (which in all honesty, we are) and if a member of our pack was going around and hurting other members in a way that our pack "laws" deemed wrong, the culprit would either be killed or banished from the pack. However, now that we are placing so much more importance on the individual, we believe that these transgressors can be rehabilitated, and we sentence them too lightly, or in some cases not at all. Please don't read this as me believing we should do away with the rehabilitation process all together. Some people can be rehabilitated (although I think many of the people who can be generally don't need to be). But some crimes either are of the class where the culprit can't be rehabilitated or doesn't deserve to be.

One of the most helpful pieces of advice I ever received from someone was that "you are always in control of your own actions". I found this very empowering, but at the same time, it means that we are all have to take responsibility for our own actions. If we lead a gang of people on a rape-spree, we are responsible for that. Even if we are part of a group rather than the leader, and I don't care what people say about group mentality, you are still responsible. Even if you are drunk. No one forced you to drink in the first place, and you should be aware of how you'll act while under the influence.

Where I live, there was a while ago a very brutal and unforgivable crime committed by two young (upperclass) adult males. They got off light because they were drunk and the victim was a native american prostitute, despite the fact that everyone who knew them knew they had a history of drunken violence and date rape. One of the boys recently got released on parole after a veryveryvery short time in prison and just as quickly he got put back in (I believe on charges of assault).

Taking the last one first:

quote:

---

even if that individual has chosen to place him/herself into a position where they give up their rights

---

The whole point about rights is they cannot be 'given up'. They are RIGHTS. Of course, the state has a duty to override the right of one individual's freedom in order to protect the health/freedom of others, but the person has not 'given up' that right. The reason I draw this rather semantic point out, is that if we believe rights can be given up, then we are on the path to having someone determine when a right has been given up, which itself leads back down the road to the state (perhaps in the form of the criminal justice system) determining who has rights, rather than, as rights were originally intended, everyone having those rights by dint of being human and alive.

Linked, I guess, to this, and more pertinent to the topic (hoping you'll forgive me for the off-topic bit above) is your comment:

quote:

---

But some crimes either are of the class where the culprit can't be rehabilitated or doesn't deserve to be.

---

I think this misunderstands what rehabilitation is and what it involves and why it happens. The underlying implication is that some people deserve it, as if it is a desirable thing for them, and that others do not. Rehabilitation depends not on the crime, but on the person. It is often extremely painful for the person being rehabilitated, because it involves them fully confronting what they did, why, how and the consequences. Imagine, if you can, the scorn and hate with which we view paedophiles. The pain we feel at what they do etc. Then imagine that you come to a full realisation that that is you, that is the pain you have caused. Rehabilitation is a torturous process for the prisoner, because it involves a complete destruction of their former selves and a rebuilding of a new person. It is not the easy option.

I can understand how it may seem so from the outside, and why the media view it as the easy option, but the thought of being locked up for life is not as fightening as the murderer/rapist/paedophile being forced to confront what they are and what they have done. This is why not everyone is rehabilitated, because for some it is not an option - either it will just drive them insane, or they have other issues that makes it too difficult and too unlikely to be successful. But the judgement over whether they are suitable candidates for rehabilitation is not based on the severity of the crime, but on them and whether they have the strength, stamina and potential required.

One final point (and I can kinda guess how you might respond, but such is life):

quote:

---

I don't care what people say about group mentality, you are still responsible. Even if you are drunk. No one forced you to drink in the first place, and you should be aware of how you'll act while under the influence.

---

This is to do with culpability - how much of the crime is an individual responsible for? We accept that some murders (very few) are the result of someone acting whilst insane - the insanity may be permanent or temporary and is determined by medical experts. The reason a plea of insanity is important is that it indicates how much a person knew of what they were doing. Of course, a drunk person is theoretically aware before getting drunk what they may do, but can you honestly say that actions you perform when drunk are always ones you would do normally. The question of intent (mens rea) is important here - did the drunk driver intend to kill someone when they got in the car? Group influences do change human behaviour as numerous experiments as well as personal experience prove. It is less easy to act alone when the pressure of the group is present. These are factors that judges must take into account in sentencing and in this case, as the LEADER of the group, the judge considered that an aggravating factor and it increased the sentence. The reverse may also be true, and legal thought has taken this into consideration for centuries.

None of this is to excuse criminals, it is to gain a better understanding of the human mind, the criminal mind and the criminal act, and rehabilitation rests on the human emotion of hope. That we can do better than just locking people up - we can make them see the consequneces of their actions and have them change from being a negative influence in the "pack of animals" (which actually we are not, that is what makes humanity different!) to being a positive contributor.

quote:

---

This is to do with culpability - how much of the crime is an individual responsible for?

---

I can appreciate that there are times when people are acting beyond their ability to control themselves. But I think that we are getting to the point where we are going into the ridiculous. I think in 100 years people will look back on us in the same way we look back on the witch hunts. We are caught up in a fervor. We want so badly to come to an understanding with the human mind that we make great excuses for ourselves. We need to face up to the fact that sometimes we just need to be strong and take responsibility. Sooner or later we are going to find an "excuse" for every crime committed by everyone we want to be seen as innocent that everyone is going to be getting off with a small fine and a pat on the rump.

I'm sure there is probably a better alternative to remedying this than just putting everyone in jail (or on the moon). But we don't seem to be able to find it. Or we secretly all know what it is but won't do anything to change it. I think my real problem with rehab for criminals is that we're only doing it half-assed. We're still throwing them in a prison behind bars with countless other criminals of varying criminal backgrounds. We need to decide if our justice system supports punishment or rehab. And if it's a combination of the two, we need a better way of pulling it off. Does anyone know the stats on repeat offenders?

The point I was trying (clumsily) to make is that I think there are some crimes so evil that they can't or shouldn't be rehabed. And I think most of these crimes fall under the heading of "stealing innocence". Any sexual or violent crime aimed at someone who can't defend themselves or doesn't know any better. To give a cliche, Children are our most important resource. If someone were to start destroying the oil reserves we have, do you think that they would be let off with a minor sentence? No. They would feel the full wrath of the entire civilized world.

quote:

---

But the judgement over whether they are suitable candidates for rehabilitation is not based on the severity of the crime, but on them and whether they have the strength, stamina and potential required

---

But how can you determine this? Is it a hit-or-miss campaign? Do we just attempt to rehab someone and let them go and if they repeat offend, just chalk it up to them being of unsuitable character? People can fake their way through rehab. They can even believe that they are rehab'd but when they are released discover they don't have the strength to take it with them. This is where personal strength and control comes into play. I think everyone has the strength in them to not do these things, but we are trained from an early age that we are weak when it comes to our desires. The entire smoking industry is based on this. It was that above-mentioned piece of advice that got me to quit smoking. We're constantly told how hard it is to conquer the cravings. But all you have to do is do it. Quit. That's it. Just take personal responsibility and quit. I'll admit that it can be difficult at times, but what good is being able to be rational if you can't use that ability to think to take control of yourself and drive you through the hard times?

I feel I'm wandering. Ok. This is the point I'd like to get across. I think we are being told that we don't need to take responsibility for our actions because we as humans have weaknesses and we are too weak to stand up to them. We are also getting very good at passing the buck and blaming others for our actions. Take responsibility for your actions. That's the main thing.

One, in my mind, is rehabilitatable, (even if my inventive spelling and usage is not) and the other is not, and our system has to recognize that through sentencing and incarceration.

If a judge has good evidential reason to believe that a rapist is likely to re-offend, then a life sentence isn't inappropriate.

In the case instant, it seems to me the judge considers the rapist of the second type, and I have no issue with the sentence; for once we have a British based criminal justice system that recognizes female victims not as damaged chattels, but actual humans that have had the sanctity of personal liberty stolen, perhaps for their entire lives.

It is true that rehabilitation in the community is more successful than that done in prison, on certain offenders (like young habitual offenders, drug offenders), but for paedophiles and sex criminals, an enclosed environment, to some extent like a hospital, is needed. You ask what the overall intention is of the criminal justice system - punishment or rehab? Both, and they are not mutually exclusive - rehabilitation can be more effective if after an element of punishment - the offender pays for their crime and then they get prepared for readmittance to society. I agree that we are going at it half-assed and that is because politicians are too keen to pander to the 'animals' argument and once criminals are labelled, it is very difficult for the public not to bay like a mob, especially at criminals that revolt us all. Making the case for rehabilitation of sex offenders (and they are actually often 'good' candidates for rehab) is not easy in such an environment. Yet society might be better served by rehabilitating them rather than locking them up and throwing away the key. But the perception (which it seems you have) that rehabilitation is the easy option and does not contain a punitive element is an argument advanced by people opposed to anything but the harshest punishments. Labelling their opponents politically correct (because that always gets them a cheer) does not deny the outdated nature of their arguments.

But, they are a minority we have to keep incarcerated because we owe the non-criminal element of society some degree of safety.

Unfortunately it comes down in the end to how many resources we want to spend on persons that have transgressed our laws.

We can make the argument that rehabilitation, particularly with younger offenders is more cost effective in the long run, but it's a very hard sell.

quote:

---

But, they are a minority we have to keep incarcerated because we owe the non-criminal element of society some degree of safety.

---

Is anyone saying otherwise? If someone cannot be rehabilitated, then of course they must be somewhere they pose no danger to others. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that point, but as you say, this is a small minority and it does not mean, for instance, that all rapists and all paedophiles are not suitable for rehabilitation.

quote:

---

We can make the argument that rehabilitation, particularly with younger offenders is more cost effective in the long run, but it's a very hard sell.

---

It is for sure, but it must be made, because irrelevant of the financial implications, it is better for society generally as well as those individuals, especially the young who have potentially so much to offer. The right is definitely picking and choosing on the balance sheet there, but it should not just be made on their battleground of cost implications, but on what is going to be most effective for society and not pursuing rehabilitation does no-one any good in the long run.

Apart from politicians.

Even if the person who did this could be rehab'd, why should they be? They have gone too far and deserve no second chance.

A few years ago, I went to court for a friend who was raped by a friend of her boyfriend's. The jerk, who had been jailed many times on rape and other assault charges through the years before this, only got 4 months because he saw my friend that afternoon at a barbeque where she had been drinking and the judge upheld that he likely had reason to think she wanted sex with him based on the fact that women often get flirty when drinking. He came to the boyfriend's house very late that night after seeing the boyfriend in a local bar and finding out she was there alone waiting for him. She did not let him in willingly, she was sober by then. She tried to fight at first, but having been abused in her years of marriage, gave up after being hit a few times. The judge felt if she didn't want it, she would have put up more than token resistance.

quote:

---

But I also think that sometimes, even if rehab is an option for the person, it is wrong. I believe that there are some crimes which are so gruesome and evil that there can be no forgiveness....Even if the person who did this could be rehab'd, why should they be? They have gone too far and deserve no second chance.

---

quote:

---

Making the case for rehabilitation of sex offenders (and they are actually often 'good' candidates for rehab) is not easy in such an environment.

---

Absolutely, we do need to make changes to the system, to ensure that offenders don't come out in worse shape than they were when they first went in, and they need properly funded psychological and economic support once they've completed their sentence or have been paroled.

But.

It's all a colossal waste of time, effort and money if we don't address the root causes of criminal violence in general and sexual violence and violence against women and children in particular.

quote:

---

She did not let him in willingly, she was sober by then. She tried to fight at first, but having been abused in her years of marriage, gave up after being hit a few times. The judge felt if she didn't want it, she would have put up more than token resistance

---

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

All I'm saying ( and I'm not disputing that rehab is a difficult road to go down) is that there is a reward at the end of that road and it's a reward that some people don't deserve. I know that the case I am proposing is unlikely. There are probably very few, if any, people who would do something that hideous and still be able to be rehab'd, but I'm just trying to get the point across that even if the option is available, it is not always desireable. This is the kind of situation where every case must be examined individually. Our justice system is too reliant on precedent.

By the way Apemantus, are you actually involved in the rehabilitation process in one way or another? I am not, but it seems to me like the kind of system that ideally would be a hard road to walk, but in reality, and for the sake of cutting down on paper work, would be the kind of thing where if you Praise Jesus enough, they'll declare you rehabilitated.

In retrospect, don't think I don't appreciate the fact that I AM asking you to reply to this one.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: dale cooper ]

Usually, people who talk easily of forty years, or fifty five years have no meaningful idea of what such a sentence entails.

Ask yourself what you were doing forty years ago today. Or ask what your parents were doing. Then, think individually of each and every day of these forty years, in which hour after hour, you were locked up.

That won't begin to give you the feeling of such a sentence, but it may give an idea of the length.

I note that the Australian source cited found it important to include the fact that the perpetrators are Lebanese Muslims. I have no doubt that this played a role in the sentence being so severe.

It is a well-documented phenomenon that "the other", be it blacks, Muslims, or whatever, get much harsher sentences for rape in most jurisdictions.

quote:

---

Is this an assumption, or do you have actual statistics on rates of re-offending for people convicted of sex crimes?

---

Not specific statistics on hand, though it was covered by my criminal justice policy module last year, and various comparisons of rehab vs prison showed that rehab did reduce re-offending rates, and when fully financed and resourced reduced it by a lot. The rates of re-offending for sex crimes is high because the availability and funding for rehbailitation is low (ie the many convicted of sex crimes are seldom given the rehabilitation they need and are then also let out of prison having not had proper rehabilitation. Where they do get that rehabilitation - there was a recent furore in the UK about the closure of a specialist paedophile rehab unit that had a near 100% record on not re-offending).

quote:

---

Pedophiles, actually, are considered to be "unrehabilitatable" because of the obsessive nature of the personality disorder that causes pedophilia.

---

And you got that from...? I would imagine it depends on what is meant by rehabilitation, in that paedophiles take a lot more effort and a lot more time (and therefore money) than, for example, young offenders or habitual petty criminals. But they can and are rehabilitated where the facilities and resources exist, which sadly they often don't.

quote:

---

It's all a colossal waste of time, effort and money if we don't address the root causes of criminal violence in general and sexual violence and violence against women and children in particular.

---

Absolutely, and I am sure anyone who favours rehabilitation would be in agreement with you on that. But prison is also a colossal waste of time, effort and money for the same reason.

quote:

---

I don't recall ever asking you to, so don't pretend it's an unwanted chore.

---

You misunderstand, I meant it is a chore for the reader not for me.

quote:

---

there is a reward at the end of that road

---

Really? I don't think many who have been down that path or many involved in it would feel the same way. I can understand why you might think that, but that is a perception rather than a reality.

quote:

---

but in reality, and for the sake of cutting down on paper work, would be the kind of thing where if you Praise Jesus enough, they'll declare you rehabilitated.

---

No. Anyone actually involved in rehab (by which I mean the medical staff, the various personnel - parole boards, prison staff) would not take the word of the patient in the way you imply. I can imagine this as the common public perception of rehabilitation - as if it is some overworked (it is) government (it is) department just wanting to process the paperwork quickly (it isn't - it is way too dangerous!). Think of it like this - you're a rehab doctor/psychiatrist etc., you know very well the potential harm of releasing someone before they can cope, you know that if you process people quickly just to get them off your books, they may well re-offend, you would not agree to it on that basis, because if anything you are making more work not less and reducing the viability of what you do in the overseers' and the public's eyes.

That said, the huge lack of resources combined with understandable public cynicism (because of the way the criminal justice system and sentencing policy works) does mean that many people who should be rehabilitated are not, and many get only a fleeting chance in the rehab system, the end effect of which is either more re-offending or a need for rehab when they next come through the system. The point I am labouriously trying to make is that the faults (and there are many) are not to do with the rehab process itself nor those who work in it, so much as with the politicians/government, the legal system and public perceptions.

quote:

---

there was a recent furore in the UK about the closure of a specialist paedophile rehab unit that had a near 100% record on not re-offending).

---

All those pedophiles are now dead then?

I say when there is no question, rapists and pedophiles should be put to death. In Canada the best we can hope for is to have them put away under the dannerous offenders act. To hell with a second chance to rape someone or worse kill some kid because some doctor gets suckered into beleiving these fuckers are safe to release.

I am not worried about what it does mentally to the offender to be locked up for life. I think they have agreed to give up those rights when they decided to rape someone.

quote:

---

I think they have agreed to give up those rights when they decided to rape someone.

---

Apart from relevant stuff like the all too common reality that the abused becomes the abuser (so those 'fuckers' were themselves abused as kids, which is why some of them are so sexually confused), you also don't actually solve the ongoing problem of child abuse and rape by just killing them - if you ever want it to stop, you have to do more than just kill the people who commit those crimes.

Not that I would expect you to understand.

quote:

---

I would imagine it depends on what is meant by rehabilitation, in that paedophiles take a lot more effort and a lot more time (and therefore money) than, for example, young offenders or habitual petty criminals

---

I would submit that the small percentage of convicted pedophiles who do not reoffend are not true pedophiles and/or are wrongly convicted of the crime of sexual assault against a child.

quote:

---

But prison is also a colossal waste of time, effort and money for the same reason.

---

quote:

---

Usually, people who talk easily of forty years, or fifty five years have no meaningful idea of what such a sentence entails

---

It is my personal opinion that, unless there is a possibility that the individual was wrongly convicted, an individual who never takes responsibility or shows remorse for their crime should rot in prison indefinitely.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

I note that the Australian source cited found it important to include the fact that the perpetrators are Lebanese Muslims. I have no doubt that this played a role in the sentence being so severe.

---

I believe that the references to the criminal's heritage is made frequently in this case because the group of men identified themselves in this way. Mark Steyn's article in the Post today (it isn't online but in the paper copy) says that they told their victims they were going to "find out what if feels like to be done the "LEB" way".

The criminals made a point of their heritage, not the media. They ganged raped women somehow in the "name" of being lebanese muslims... It was their common bond, I suppose.

Personally, I don't think the sentence is too long. I believe the crime was particularly horrible. As for whether or not it is comparitively heavy, I doubt very much that the Australian courts have much to compare it to.

The crimes had some particularly viscious and disturbing elements - the gang rape, the rape of children, the group's cultural basis of their gang, and the excuse that they were only raping "Australian" women... I would prefer to see them locked up forever...

I believe in rehabilitation, but I also believe in revenge. The criminal system in Canada is based on both these things. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I believe the system can perform both functions.

quote:

---

It is my personal opinion that, unless there is a possibility that the individual was wrongly convicted, an individual who never takes responsibility or shows remorse for their crime should rot in prison indefinitely.

---

assuming you are talking about serious crimes with this statement rather than all crimes, no prisoner convicted of a serious offence, especially a sexual or violent crime, is released unless they show remorse and take responsibility. It is a condition of their release.

As for what you write about paedophiles, there's not much I can say than go have a chat with Slick Willy, you might find some common ground.

And as for your comment that:

quote:

---

And usually people who talk forcefully about keeping the length of prison sentences to a "humane" period of time for sex offenders have never been the victim of a violent sexual assault

---

That's a pretty low fucking comment, because the only way it can be answered is by the person wanting humane sentences to then also have to reveal what has happened to them as that is the only way someone like you will feel they are justified in saying what they do.

quote:

---

Still, it is possible that such an individual can be rehabilitated and released if they are remorseful and cognizant of the impact of their crime. In which case, parole is warranted.

---

Of course. And in the Australian case, the judge has decided that, whatever their level of remorse, etc, they cannot get parole for forty years.

The crime sounds barbaric and racist according to the accounts posted here.

Oh, and I thought this one was particularly amusing,

quote:

---

no prisoner convicted of a serious offence, especially a sexual or violent crime, is released unless they show remorse and take responsibility. It is a condition of their release.

---

quote:

---

A few years ago, I went to court for a friend who was raped by a friend of her boyfriend's. The jerk, who had been jailed many times on rape and other assault charges through the years before this, only got 4 months because he saw my friend that afternoon at a barbeque where she had been drinking and the judge upheld that he likely had reason to think she wanted sex with him based on the fact that women often get flirty when drinking...The judge felt if she didn't want it, she would have put up more than token resistance.

---

This is the beauty of the Canadian legal system when it comes to rape. Even if there is DNA evidence linking the SOB raper to the rape victim, she still has to prove that in some way, she did not want to be raped. Whether she didn't fight enough, if she had a drink, if she lost her virginity at the age of 15 instead of 16, if she's a woman of colour, if the man is in a position of power, you name it. It's something that cannot be proven, which is why rape has the lowest conviction rate in Canada for crimes. The whole legal process goes to revictimize and scores of women do not even bother going through the legal system, because chances are, they're going to have their whole sexual history drug up and the offender is going to get a slap on the wrist.

It is VERY rare that in Canada a man convicted of raping a woman gets 10-15 years, if they get any time at all.

quote:

---

And usually people who talk forcefully about keeping the length of prison sentences to a "humane" period of time for sex offenders have never been the victim of a violent sexual assault.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and I thought this one was particularly amusing

---

It was a specific response to a specific point made by Rebecca but feel free to remove it from the context and turn it into something different.

Why not?

quote:

---

assuming you are talking about serious crimes with this statement rather than all crimes, no prisoner convicted of a serious offence, especially a sexual or violent crime, is released unless they show remorse and take responsibility. It is a condition of their release.

---

quote:

---

As for what you write about paedophiles, there's not much I can say than go have a chat with Slick Willy, you might find some common ground

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And usually people who talk forcefully about keeping the length of prison sentences to a "humane" period of time for sex offenders have never been the victim of a violent sexual assault
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a pretty low fucking comment, because the only way it can be answered is by the person wanting humane sentences to then also have to reveal what has happened to them as that is the only way someone like you will feel they are justified in saying what they do.
Nasty.

---

Well Ape, you're not alone in your opinion. The perspective of the victim/survivor of violent sexual assault is still frequently dismissed when sentencing for sexual assault is considered by the courts. It's a shame, because it means that a woman or child who's been dehumanized by some monster is further devalued by a system that won't recognize the impact of the crime on them, a system that often fails to protect society against such people by releasing them unrehabilitated among the unsuspecting public.

quote:

---

Barbaric and racist. Can anyone come up with an Australian case in which such a sentence was imposed on a white defendant of twenty years of age

---

quote:

---

Actually, this is not true as far as I know. Many times people who have been violently sexual assaulted do keep their humanity and rise above vengeance

---

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

I am sorry, I don't think I noticed any references in your response, so why don't you produce them first - I got my knowledge from a criminologist who taught me last year as well as the Newsnight programme I watched on the paedophile rehab hospital that is now closing that I mentioned above.

As for the low fucking comment, I think the justice system doesn't do anywhere near enough for victims, but you said that:

quote:

---

And usually people who talk forcefully about keeping the length of prison sentences to a "humane" period of time for sex offenders have never been the victim of a violent sexual assault

---

What the hell does that have to do with a judge's sentence? You can (and rightfully) criticise short sentences, but that is not the same (unless you live in some simple alternative universe!) What does the comment in quotes above have to do with:

quote:

---

people on both sides of the sentencing argument, the victim as well as the one being sentenced, don't really know how the individuals are impacted, is making a low fucking comment? You think it's nasty to suggest that the permanent and irreperable damage done to the victim of violent sexual assault isn't given enough attention when considering the length of sentence for a perpetrator?

---

NONE of that is what I said. I said that your comment was dismissive of anyone who disagrees with in'humane' sentences on the basis that they have never been a victim. Guess what, some of them have. Arguing for humane sentences is not dismissing the victim at all. Arguing for rehabilitation is not dismissing the victim, it is about trying to find a means of retribution that also involves getting the criminal to recognise the hurt they have caused, to realise the enormity of the crime they have committed, in its entirety, and to understand the consequences for the victim.

There is a hell of a lot of secondary victimization within the criminal justice system and a lot of it at the sentencing stage, but it is not as simple as the people arguing for humane sentencing (your translation = gets off lightly) meaning they want shorter sentences.

I imagine you want to lump me in with Jeff House. Before you do, look up this thread to my first post. I want HUMANE sentences, that does not mean I want SHORT sentences.

quote:

---

what is humane and what is inhumane and barbaric is highly subjective

---

quote:

---

Barbaric and racist? What? The sentence or the crime?

---

Both, of course.
---------------------------
As for Shenanigans' comments, they betray a lack of understanding of the way in which an offence, or indeed any fact, must be proven.

For example, take this comment:

quote:

---

Even if there is DNA evidence linking the SOB raper to the rape victim, she still has to prove that in some way, she did not want to be raped.

---

Sexual intercourse is legal. Sexual intercourse may involve the exchange of fluids, and so, DNA.
So, the fact that there is DNA present proves only that a physical interaction did take place.

When the issue is whether the woman consented or not, it will be necessary for the woman to swear that she did not wish to have sexual intercourse.
This is hardly outrageous, but simply a requirement that each element of the crime be proven. Or should we presume, as Shenanigans suggests, that the presence of DNA has implications for the question of consent?

Shenanigans also points out that it rare to get 10 to 15 years for rape in Canada. Yes, it is. What I said in my earlier post was that the accused would likely get that sentence for THESE crimes, which were multiple, barbaric, and racist.

I am not aware of any case in which jail was not given for rape. Commonly in Ontario, sentences of two to three years jail are given for a first offence of sexual assault which amounts to rape.

I also understand her frustration:

quote:

---

It's something that cannot be proven, which is why rape has the lowest conviction rate in Canada for crimes.

---

Rape is very hard to prove, because there are usually no witnesses other than the participants in the sexual intercourse. But I doubt that anyone wants people to go to jail for a crime which has not been proven, do they?

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: jeff house ]

quote:

---

It's already highly subjective. What I'm suggesting is that victim impact be considered AT LEAST to the extent that the rights of the offender are. Until the system ceases to ignore the victim (at best) or brutalize and demonize the victim (at worst) then it can't claim to be just in any way.

---

quote:

---

Commonly in Ontario, sentences of two to three years jail are given for a first offence of sexual assault which amounts to rape.

---

So what you have plenty of uses for rapists. yafuckinhoo, I don't. None at all. Waste of space and any money or effort spent on fixing them is nothing more than throwing good money after bad. Of course you wouldn't understand that now would you. After all you're the guy who would have them released to rape again and again with the excuse that it's the systems fault or societies hell anyone's fault but the rapist. Thanks for nothing. I am sure Paul Bernardo could use a kind word if you have some spare time.

Jeff I can understand your position being a lawyer and all, but I think it become evident that the pendulum that is justice has moved too far in the direction of educating career criminals and giving them another shot at the public who should protected by the justice system.

quote:

---

As for Shenanigans' comments, they betray a lack of understanding of the way in which an offence, or indeed any fact, must be proven.

---

I'd like to think I know a thing or two about the legal process, not from a position of privilige to analyse it, but as a survivor and as a volunteer worker and student of Assaulted Women and Children's Counselling/Advocacy who watches continuously first hand how it plays itself out for women who are raped.

quote:

---

Sexual intercourse is legal. Sexual intercourse may involve the exchange of fluids, and so, DNA. So, the fact that there is DNA present proves only that a physical interaction did take place.

---

Thank you for pointing that out. I was using it as a more extreme example and would like to point out that rape may not leave any traces of DNA behind.

quote:

---

When the issue is whether the woman consented or not, it will be necessary for the woman to swear that she did not wish to have sexual intercourse. This is hardly outrageous, but simply a requirement that each element of the crime be proven. Or should we presume, as Shenanigans suggests, that the presence of DNA has implications for the question of consent?[/

---

I'm not suggesting anything, don't put words into my posts. Having a woman swear to the crime is not outrageous, what is outrageous is the defense will do everything in their power to prove otherwise, that the woman did indeed give consent, even if verbally she said NO. Maybe she was wearing a short skirt, or had a drink or two that evening, she's disabled-who'd want to rape her, they're married, maybe she was menstruating and dreamt the whole thing up (which was used successfully as a defense in the US). And unbelievably, these ridiculous defenses work, as opposed to proving that the rape did not occur, it was whether she asked for it. This is sexist, it's wrong, it continues to allow many rapes to happen because it discourages many victims to seek "justice" through the legal system.

quote:

---

I am not aware of any case in which jail was not given for rape. Commonly in Ontario, sentences of two to three years jail are given for a first offence of sexual assault which amounts to rape.

---

I certainly am. While I should specifics, client confidentiality and my ethics do not permit.

quote:

---

Rape is very hard to prove, because there are usually no witnesses other than the participants in the sexual intercourse. But I doubt that anyone wants people to go to jail for a crime which has not been proven, do they?

---

No one wants anyone to go to jail for a crime they are innocent of. It happens all too often when it boils down to race. Yet at the same time, there is a huge unbalance of men who are not going to prison because it was determined that the woman wanted the violence, by sexist a framework, or if convicted, the jail time is pathetic (and yes, 2 years is pathetic).

All in all, this discussion is actually a little moot, because more often than not if the crime is reported, charges are not laid. But it's a fun discussion nonetheless.

quote:

---

I imagine you want to lump me in with Jeff House.

---

Well, lump me sort of close. No, lump me even further in left field.

I don't believe in revenge; I don't even believe in punishment. (When I say I don't believe, I don't mean that I don't recognize people have these impulses, powerful, almost unbidden. I just don't think we have to be ruled by them. And I don't believe democracy can withstand them.)

I also think we are absolutely nowhere on understanding and sorting through the many different kinds of sexual assault that occur, and we are probably worse than nowhere on treating serious cases of pedophilia or murderous compulsion of several kinds.

I also think our courts are primitive in their dealings with victims of sexual crimes during the trials proper -- but I think that victim-impact statements are a travesty of justice.

I'm also convinced that the majority of violent criminals were themselves seriously abused or have FAS/FAE.

quote:

---

And unbelievably, these ridiculous defenses work, as opposed to proving that the rape did not occur, it was whether she asked for it.

---

"She asked for it" is, I presume, a crude way of saying that "she consented." If she consented, then the rape did not occur, since rape is sex without consent.

As for this comment:

quote:

---

Let me state that I use the term rape or I use sexual violence. I notice that there has been a trend in the legal system to say sexual assault, but to me (and a lot of my counterparts) that doesn't significantly convey the horrific crime it is.

---

Rape was taken out of the Criminal Code and replaced by the crime of sexual assault. The MAIN people demanding this change were feminists. They argued that since rape required proof of actual penetration, it was demeaning to the witness/complainant. Further, some writers on rape, such as Loren Clarke, argued that "rape" was a crime involving the husband or father's "possession" of the woman's reproductive system. They argued that as such, it was a historical artifact, and should be replaced with a less-compromised crime, "sexual assault."

quote:

---

"She asked for it" is, I presume, a crude way of saying that "she consented." If she consented, then the rape did not occur, since rape is sex without consent.

---

If she consented, I doubt that except for a small minority of cases, she would be there in court accusing someone of rape. However under a sexist framework, consent can be (and is!) established by one of the various examples I brought up that were edited out of your post. For some odd reason, saying no is not enough.

quote:

---

Rape was taken out of the Criminal Code and replaced by the crime of sexual assault. The MAIN people demanding this change were feminists. They argued that since rape required proof of actual penetration, it was demeaning to the witness/complainant. Further, some writers on rape, such as Loren Clarke, argued that "rape" was a crime involving the husband or father's "possession" of the woman's reproductive system. They argued that as such, it was a historical artifact, and should be replaced with a less-compromised crime, "sexual assault."

---

I understand why it was taken out, thanks for the refresher. But there are differences of opinions among feminists, and while many have argued for the word to be changed, there are many you will find who still frequently use the word. But I mentioned that as a trivial part of my post, no biggie to me either way.

I'm sorry but this was not justice. I would never advise a woman to report a rape after this. The same day, a 15 year old girl had to testify about being raped by her mother's boss and he got off free too. Again, the judge decided the kid wanted it because she was coming to the office after school, supposedly as the man said, to flirt with him.

quote:

---

I also think we are absolutely nowhere on understanding and sorting through the many different kinds of sexual assault that occur, and we are probably worse than nowhere on treating serious cases of pedophilia or murderous compulsion of several kinds.

---

Treating pedophilia? How do you treat pedophilia?
What makes you think you can? Is this one of those ideas where you can "treat" homosexuality so that gay men can live a hetrosexual lifestyle and thus be "fixed praise the lord" shit?

As much as some people want to wish it away, rapists and pedophilacs don't have some chemical imbalance or just the wrong idea about sex.
They choose to attack people not because they think it is how life works. They know it's wrong and they are fine with that.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

After all you're the guy who would have them released to rape again and again with the excuse that it's the systems fault or societies hell anyone's fault but the rapist

---

Oh, what's this - its "words in mouth" arguing? Where do I say that, Slick?

Is it just my imagination thinking that time and again, I made the point that for rehab to be effective the rapist must accept that it is their fault, that they are responsible for the crime and all the consequences. But why bother reading someone's posts when you can just put words in their mouth, ey, Slick?

You're all heart, Slick

(All heart and no mind)

Edited for grammar.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Apemantus ]

quote:

---

How do you treat pedophilia?
What makes you think you can? Is this one of those ideas where you can "treat" homosexuality so that gay men can live a hetrosexual lifestyle and thus be "fixed praise the lord" shit?.........They choose to attack people not because they think it is how life works. They know it's wrong and they are fine with that.

---

And out of interest, when did you get these great insights into the paedophile's mind. What makes you so sure that "they know it's wrong and they are fine with that." In any case, your logic seems a bit flawed here - you start by making the point that paedophilia can't be treated, the implication being that it is not something people have any choice over, then you finish by saying that they choose paedophilia. Now, which do you think it is, Willy? Do they choose to be paedophiles or not? If you accept that it is not a choice they have, then the next question is like, for example, married gay men, do they have the choice whether to 'express' their paedophilia, to which the answer is yes, they could have seeked help before committing the act, there a variety of systems and people they can seek help from (although I wonder whether you think these should exist, seeing as you see it as untreatable - do you think we should just wait for paedophiles to commit their first offence, then having identified them AFTER that offence, deal with them (in your world, presumably lock 'em up and throw away the key)? Or do you think it is right that there should exist systems to try and identify and stop paedophiles prior to the first offence? And if so, you are admitting that something can be done (unless you think those systems should be just a cell into which admitted paedophiles with no criminal convictions should be put).

I think you need to clarify (calmly as it might make it easier for yourself) what your thinking is and then we can take it from there.

quote:

---

Are any of you saying that this isn't a violent act and is sexual?

---

Why don't you try reading their posts, Willy? I can't see anyone on this thread saying that they are not violent and sexual, can you?

If you do answer this post, can you respond to what I DO say rather than what I don't, please, as your outbursts above are based on your own biases rather than anything I actually wrote in the thread.

quote:

---

assuming you are talking about serious crimes with this statement rather than all crimes, no prisoner convicted of a serious offence, especially a sexual or violent crime, is released unless they show remorse and take responsibility. It is a condition of their release.

---

Show remorse and take responsibility? I can see the "I'm sorry" bit but how does a pedophile take responsibility for molesting children? By listing them, maybe getting togeather after release from prison (yes I'm sure that is the first thing someone who has been raped wants) maybe do a little restitution work for the victim?

Hey stupid! If someone is willing to commit rape or is a pedophile they are not to likely to have a problem with not being entirely honest if it means they can get off the skinner floor.

Or do you think those master minds down in parole will just use their "mad skills" and weed out those who might do a little fibbing to get let out to have some more fun?

Talk about not having a clue!

quote:

---

If you accept that it is not a choice they have, then the next question is like, for example, married gay men, do they have the choice whether to 'express' their paedophilia, to which the answer is yes, they could have seeked help before committing the act,

---

Just how fucked up a thing to say is that. Being Gay isn't being a pedophiliac. Maybe it's just that you don't know or something but homosexuality is consentual between two adults. Homosexuals don't need to be "fixed" by you, god or anyone else for that matter.

Enough people have already been hurt by those like yourself who think they know it all and though they never actually play the game have all sorts of opinions on how it should be played. You're part of a group of people who would be the first to throw their hands up in the air and say oh well when a repeat offender ruins another family or someone life just for the chance to win an argument.

It is the same stupid argument that moves pedophiles from one diocies to the next in the Catholic Church, just to save face. Yes I am sure they were terribly sorry for what they did. Didn't prevent anything though.

In fact, it's been recorded time and time again that women who live with the nightmare of their rapes for years are released from their torment when they confront their assailants in person, under safe circumstances. Suddenly, the monster is just a man. And she is able to tell that man exactly how she feels, exactly what she experienced and experiences.

It's also been recorded that men who are offered the opportunity to meet with those they assaulted are afraid to do so.

I encourage those who want to learn more about this dynamic to read "Sexual Offending and Restoration" by Mark Yantzi, Herald Press ISBN 0-8361-9081-5.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

If you accept that it is not a choice they have, then the next question is like, for example, married gay men, do they have the choice whether to 'express' their paedophilia,

---

Um, Apemantus, was this a typo? Did you mean to type "homosexuality" instead of "paedophilia"?

From my experience with them it's quite common, so perhaps that's what he was thinking.

There is no such thing as no meaning yes. There is no such thing as "they asked for it" (meaning the victim of the crime.

Every rapist knows, even as little as seconds prior to the act itself, that what they are doing is wrong. You can't tell me a rapist in any way shape or form thinks that what he or she is doing is acceptable societal behaviour -- hence why these things occur behind closed doors, in dark secluded areas and often involve threat of death if the victim makes any noise. That alone is a crime... uttering death threats.

quote:

---

The whole thing of proof is laid on the victim, not on the perpetrator.

---

What I do have a problem with, is that in rape cases, specifically with women, a woman has to prove that she did not want sex. It's not enough for a woman to swear that she did not want sex, she cannot be in any situation that (based on sexist and ridiculous standards) would equate to her consenting.

No one seems to be denying that this happens. Am I to think that it sits just fine, or that people would just rather ignore that this problem exists?

quote:

---

Though I don't condone rape or forced sexual activity in any form, I can see where inviting a man in for coffee could be misconstrued. I can see where necking for a couple of hours could be mistaken for consent. I can see stripping in front of a guy being seen as an invitation

---

I don't see how inviting someone in or even necking could be misconstrued. Even stripping for someone, although in this case, the person should know they're putting themselves in a situation where sex may be expected. I can't see any viable excuse in any situation. It's not like sex just happens and oops it over, never really noticed. There is a definite moment when physical actions are taking place and the woman (or man) has the opportunity and right to say NO. Close book. End of story. If you think they may be joking or they like it rough, back off and they'll tell you to start up again. Otherwise, no means no.

Someone earlier in this thread said "asking for it" is the same as "consent". Women do not "ask for it" by dressing the way they do or doing the things they do. Mutual agreement is very different from that. As a woman who was victimized and had no opportunity to bring the issue to court because it wasn't accepted to do that back then, I keep watching the injustices in disbelief. It really isn't that much different than it was 40 years ago. The female is still blamed.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Trisha ]

Some would have you believe that rape can some how be an honest mistake. While I do accept the idea that the odd mentally unstable woman could invite sex from a man and then try to extort money or revenge for something afterward, I think 9 times out of 10 they slip up and reveal what really happened.

There is no excuse for rape or molesting children.
No means no and there is no argument to change that.

I'm with Dale in the vigilante justice league. One way or another, I would get the fucker good. I am sure that afterward the punishment for my actions would be a tough looking reprimand for the media and a easy time for the few months I would actually spend in jail. Then a nice quiet release and probation followed by an easy time of getting the whole thing sealed.

quote:

---

What I do have a problem with, is that in rape cases, specifically with women, a woman has to prove that she did not want sex. It's not enough for a woman to swear that she did not want sex, she cannot be in any situation that (based on sexist and ridiculous standards) would equate to her consenting.

No one seems to be denying that this happens.

---

It may be enough that the woman swears she does not want sex. There are thousands of cases where this has been enough. On the other hand, there may be times when the woman's word is not enough to send someone to jail, even for those "pathetic"
two to three year periods complained above.

A common situation is this: sex occurs between a man and a woman who have been dating. Her family, specifically her father, hears about it, and confronts her. HE will chose her husband, he says.
And SHE must remain a virgin, or at least, virginal. And so, it is decided that she was raped, and never consented.

At a trial, it is necessary that this scenario, for example, be probed. Just because she says, now, that she did not want sex, is not proof that this is true.

I myself have cross-examined a woman, age 18, in a trial. She testified that she went to meet my client in a motel, and stayed there ONE WEEK. He worked every day, and came there in the evening, where sex regularly occurred. She said that she never wished to have sex.

Should I have been allowed to show her a letter she wrote to my client speculating about where they might "honeymoon"? Or ask her about the fact that her father had received $18,000.00 from a groom in Sri Lanka HE had chosen?

Or should we just take her word that she did not want sex, even once, during the whole week?
-------------
Unless one has a theory which allows lies, exaggerations, and convenient deceptions to be exposed, many injustices will result.

quote:

---

It may be enough that the woman swears she does not want sex. There are thousands of cases where this has been enough. On the other hand, there may be times when the woman's word is not enough to send someone to jail, even for those "pathetic" two to three year periods complained above.

---

And thousands where it hasn't. And thousands more that haven't even made it to court because she was judged again based on a sexist system by whether or not charges would be laid, or carried further into prosecution.

quote:

---

A common situation is this: sex occurs between a man and a woman who have been dating. Her family, specifically her father, hears about it, and confronts her. HE will chose her husband, he says. And SHE must remain a virgin, or at least, virginal. And so, it is decided that she was raped, and never consented.

---

Another common situation is this: a woman goes to a party, she may have had a few drinks, she lets a guy take her home, he somehow interprets that to mean that she wants to sleep with him. Despite her saying NO, he has sex with her. If the police decide to charge, and the crown goes ahead to prosecute, the system says that because she allowed this guy to escort her home, that she had alcohol in her system, even though she said she did not consent and has undergone emotional and physical trauma, someway, somehow, she still consented...

We can go over situations that are "common" til we're blue in the face. I'm sure that there are people out there who accuse others of rape even though there was consent. However that still does not excuse a legal system that is inhertly sexist when it comes to VAW in general and more specifically rape.

quote:

---

It is common for middle class people to underestimate the extent of these lies, etc. Because they themselves would never lie in court, they think no one would.

---

quote:

---

I myself have cross-examined a woman, age 18, in a trial. She testified that she went to meet my client in a motel, and stayed there ONE WEEK. He worked every day, and came there in the evening, where sex regularly occurred. She said that she never wished to have sex.

---

Did you ask her why she stayed in the hotel room for one week having sex with your client if she didn't want to have sex with him?

Doesn't that sound about as phoney as ordering a 12 course meal and managing to get through desert before you realize you didn't like the food and refuse to pay?

quote:

---

Because they themselves would never lie in court, they think no one would.

---

quote:

---

Despite her saying NO, he has sex with her.

---

In this scenario, he did not have sex with her. He assaulted her.

For those who have a hard time with the difference, I substitute other violent / traumatic crimes into a similar structure as that quoted:

"Despite the fact that the homeowner tried to close the door and lock it, the visitor insisted that he come in and help himself to a few gifts, including the homeowner's wallet."

"Despite her saying, 'No, don't hit me on the head with that,' Wendy was greeted by her friend with a hearty tap with a baseball bat."

"Despite having expressed no interest in ending his life just yet, Joe passed away after his non-voluntary assisted suicide."

---

The one-story-versus-the-other, adversarial legal structure is a huge part of the problem in dealing with rape. The process adds to a victim's trauma. It feeds an assailant's denial. It ruins the life of a person who's been wrongly accused.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

Shenanigans replied:

That's quite the assumption, are you certain this discussion has only occured between only the middle class?

My reply: Of course not. I didn't say it did. But
the idea that "she wouldn't lie" is common among people from middle class backgrounds, such as many of the readers here may be.

In your posts, you seem to adopt this idea. For example, you speak about the right to question her "when she said no". But of course the whole point is that we do not know what she said. We know only what she now says she said.

Of course, as you say, many women suffer rape or other sexual assault, and after telling the story, are either disbelieved, or, more commonly in my experience, the judge entertains a doubt as to what occurred. This requires acquittal in the Canadian justice system.

quote:

---

So in that case, should rapists not be prosecuted in the court system?

---

quote:

---

In your posts, you seem to adopt this idea. For example, you speak about the right to question her "when she said no". But of course the whole point is that we do not know what she said. We know only what she now says she said.

---

No, in fact I have made it quite clear a few times that I believe that there are people who will lie in court if it gets that far.

quote:

---

In this scenario, he did not have sex with her. He assaulted her.

For those who have a hard time with the difference, I substitute other violent / traumatic crimes into a similar structure as that quoted:

---

quote:

---

Just as long as they can never be a threat to the public again is good enough for me

---

Indeed, and that is my view too, contrary to how you tried to portray it!

quote:

---

Being Gay isn't being a pedophiliac. Maybe it's just that you don't know or something but homosexuality is consentual between two adults. Homosexuals don't need to be "fixed" by you, god or anyone else for that matter.

---

I am guessing you failed to heed my advice to slow down and think before you write - reread the whole post and try and understand the point I AM making rather than the made up one you seem to be responding to. I am not saying gays are paedophiles, I am saying that their sexuality is not within their control (ie. they are born gay) - that is fine by me, before you start insinuating rubbish that isn't in my posts! In the same way, paedophiles do not choose to be paedophiles, its not a lifestyle choice, they are either born, or as I believe, made paedophiliac (through a variety of factors such as abuse when younger).

The rest of your post I have referred to the mods cos I have no idea where you get the conclusions you do, so am awaiting their verdict rather than responding directly to such rubbish.

I now see others got confused. To clarify that part of my post.

What I was trying to say is married gay men have chosen (for social conditioning reasons or their own fear of the homophobia that exists within society) not to express their sexuality, but have hidden it or dealt with it on their terms, but they may still have desires for men etc. In the same way, paedophiles have a sexual urge/desire that they do not necessarily have full control or choice over (they do not just wake up and think 'oh today, I am gonna be a paedophile!'), but they do not have to express it, they can hide it, or ideally deal with it (now homosexuality is acceptable (rightly so) but paedophilia is not (also rightly so)). What I am trying to say in this longwinded way is that I do not think at all that gay men (or women) should have to deal with it or seek help, because what they do is acceptable, but paedphiles should seek help, for a sexuality that is not acceptable but a sexuality over which they have as little control as a gay man. Does that make more sense, please someone tell me they get what I am trying to say!

AS for the rest of Slick's post, I still think it is an unnecessary personal attack, but if it was based only on a misreading (or nonreading the way he spouts) of my post, then now I have clarified, an apology would be accepted.

quote:

---

If you accept that it is not a choice they have, then the next question is like, for example, married gay men, do they have the choice whether to 'express' their paedophilia, to which the answer is yes [...]

---

I believe you didn't mean to be homophobic, but I can see how you were misread.

quote:

---

But if the system we have isn't working, then does that mean we need a new system or improvements on the old. That's what I was trying to ask

---

quote:

---

It is common for middle class people to underestimate the extent of these lies, etc. Because they themselves would never lie in court, they think no one would

---

I'm trying to calmly go over the thread to discover just how a discussion of sentencing for convicted rapists got around to a discussion of women lying about rape. Because whenever there's a discussion about sexual assault, it always turns to a discussion about women lying about sexual assault. Lying on the witness stand, something all kinds of people do, has nothing to do with what a woman might have been wearing at the time, whether she had a couple of cocktails earlier in the day, or whether she fought back "sufficiently". The length of skirt does not establish credibility.

Or, it shouldn't. But it does.

Because we live in a sexist society that still believes that women who say "no" are just being coy, because good girls aren't supposed to like sex, and if they do they must pretend they don't. Such a crock of antiquated fecal matter.

So, it comes down to physical evidence, if the woman had the presence of mind to go to Emerg and we swabbed with a rape kit. If there's anything more than semen to be found. Because maybe she didn't put up a fight because he said he'd fucking kill her and she believed him.

You won't find many women-centred self-defense courses telling women to acquiesce to their attacker's demands. They say, 'assume he's going to rape and kill you, fight for your life'. You get beaten up while being raped, maybe they'll believe you in court when you tell them your injuries weren't from 'consentual rough sex'. Maybe they won't. Cops tell women to submit, that submitting may save their life. You submit, there's no evidence that it was forced, that you said no, that non-consentual sex took place, that you were brutally raped.

You, the rape victim, are sooooooooooooooo fucked by the system, what's the point in reporting the crime? Well, you don't. Most rape victims don't because they know something that almost all women know, that the only thing worse than being raped, is being re-victimized by a system that fails to protect women and fails to effectively prosecute the angry sacks of misogynistic shit who rape women.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

Going through a rape kit and a gruelling investigation and trial is enough of a deterrent to weed out liars.

Unfortunately even when all of those things are done, every action scrutinized, questioned, etc, body invaded again to collect evidence, families traumatized, psyches battered, etc, more often than could ever be tolerated, the guy walks with nothing or a slap on the wrist. What does that tell these women? You don't matter.

quote:

---

It is because of these types of unanswered questions that the judicial system has no choice but to apply the maximum term possible.

---

It is clear that for the prosecution to obtain a greater sentence because of aggravating circumstances, the said circumstances must be proven.

Since people have the right to remain silent, an "unanswered question" cannot be an aggravating circumstance.

That which has not been proven cannot be used against an accused. Even in Australia.

-----------------

quote:

---

What unfortunate wording. Although I'm fairly sure you don't mean to imply that rape victims are lower class and therefore liars or that middle class people don't lie in court, you really should have phrased it better.

---

I said nothing about rape victims. Nor did i say middle class people do not lie in court. Everybody lies in court.

However, the opinion that "she would never complain if it was not true" is one which I have heard from many middle class people. This opinion reverses the presumption of innocence which is a central underpinning of trials in the English speaking world.

It often comes from insufficient exposure to a certain underworld which does exist, and which functions on lies, frauds, scams, and evasion.
After one has experience with this world, the unlikely becomes the probable.

-------------------------

quote:

---

Because whenever there's a discussion about sexual assault, it always turns to a discussion about women lying about sexual assault.

---

On this thread, the initial topic, sentencing for rape, was broadened by Shenanigans, who thinks that the courts unnnecessarily brutalize victims of rape by way of the procedures which are used.

Unfortunately for rape victims, false claims of rape or sexual assault do occur. Some system which reliably distinguishes between the two categories must be found.

The system in use which requires the Crown to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt" goes some ways to insure that few people go to jail for rapes they did not commit. A crucial tool in the process is the right to cross examine, to see whether the complainant is lying, or telling the truth.

In the nature of the standard, "beyond reasonable doubt", some rapists will be acquitted, because the jury will be in doubt about guilt. It is a high standard.

I believe many of those who do not like "the court system" for allegations of rape would in fact like to remove the right to cross examine,
because they generally believe any complainant.

I will not put words into Shenanigans mouth, or post, but what does this comment suggest about the right to cross examine:

quote:

---

This is the beauty of the Canadian legal system when it comes to rape. Even if there is DNA evidence linking the SOB raper to the rape victim, she still has to prove that in some way, she did not want to be raped.

---

No, the Crown has to prove that she did not consent to the sexual act. Because that is what is the essence of the crime. If the Crown doesn't have to prove that, any intercourse becomes rape on the say-so of the complainant.

No one is so above suspicion that they should be given such power.

quote:

---

The system in use which requires the Crown to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt" goes some ways to insure that few people go to jail for rapes they did not commit.

---

Now, I am sure there is an awful lot that can be done to improve the current system (not least the judicial attitude to rape, which is often lackadaisical or dismissive), how the victim is treated by lawyers etc., so I am not sure we need to go fully down the path of sending all accused to jail (not least because once that happens, there are some big dangers), but I think the system does have to be changed enough that perhaps the presumption of innocence is not given the absolute extreme emphasis it has at present.

I know that is horrific to hear, and I know that if we relax it for this crime, why not others etc.

quote:

---

I said nothing about rape victims.

---

Rebecca finds no evidence that some posters may wish to undercut the procedural rights of the accused; myself, I think I did see some such evidence.

If I am wrong, and everyone remains a civil libertarian, I am most thankful.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: jeff house ]

quote:

---

Rebecca finds no evidence that some posters may wish to undercut the procedural rights of the accused; myself, I think I did see some such evidence.

---

I don't think anyone wants to undercut the procedural rights of anyone charged with a crime. What is wanted I think, is an end to the revolving door, doing all the time instead of a portion of the sentence, and no more country club jails. Some posters seem to think that just because you like diddling children doesn mean that you can't be an upstanding member of society. I say fuck that noise. Canada doesnt have a death penalty and I am ok with that. But we can and do lock up people in jails and I think rape and pedophilia are a reason, if someone is found guilty of them for spending the rest of their life in prison.

quote:

---

WOMEN ARE DEVALUED BY THE SYSTEM AND BY THE SOCIETY THAT CREATED IT. Jeezus, is that so effing hard to understand?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, rhetoric is easy to understand

---

The system gives rapists preferential treatment over victims. I know this, because the guy who assaulted and suffocated me never saw the inside of a jail cell. Even without personal experience with the callous indifference of authorities in such cases, the evidence of how little the system and society gives a shit about women and girls is everywhere I look. Every girl, every woman is surrounded by that crap all her life. You don't see it because you don't experience it. We try to explain it, offer some realistic picture of what it's like to be devalued as a human being, and people like you call it rhetoric.

Oh, what's the fucking point.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

What is wanted I think, is an end to the revolving door, doing all the time instead of a portion of the sentence, and no more country club jails.

---

quote:

---

The moment you start saying that it is better to jail ten innocent people than let one guilty person go because of a relaxed burden of proof is the day I check out of this society.

---

Really interesting Doc that you spewed that out, as it is rubbish. Of course, the reverse is often advocated - that it is better to let ten guilty people go than jail one innocent person (which I assume is why you turned it on its head).

However, 2 points occur to me.

1. If it meant jailing ten innocents for one guilty, then I too would check out of the society, but that is so extreme a figure that I would actually rephrase it like this. If one innocent person went to prison for every 50 guilty ones, that might be a price I could bear. Why? Because at the moment...

2. Ten guilty people at least seem to be being let go to avoid jailing the one innocent. (The statistics most recently discussed in the UK said that with rape, the percentage of rapists being sent down (for pitifully short sentences) is is minimal, perhaps as low as 1 in 20 or 50 (a lot is supposition, but such is the nature of this one - I can understand that might offend your scientific mind, but alas nowt I can do on that front!)

quote:

---

1. If it meant jailing ten innocents for one guilty, then I too would check out of the society, but that is so extreme a figure that I would actually rephrase it like this. If one innocent person went to prison for every 50 guilty ones, that might be a price I could bear. Why? Because at the moment...

---

So, given the full choice (rather than the edited version you provided as a blatant troll), I'll take the least worst. Because it is least worst by a big enough margin.

Don't forget having your clear conscience (or however you may wish to describe it) also has a price - as long as you're happy to pay yours, I am only too happy to pay mine.

I believe science is working hard to identify hardwire issues. While I am generally okay with this, I am worried on the Orwellian potential. To be told that your hardwiring will kick in when you hit puberty and that necessarily you will need to be segregated from society seem rash. On the other hand do we let timebombs that we can identify walk around.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Pogo ]

quote:

---

Don't forget having your clear conscience (or however you may wish to describe it) also has a price - as long as you're happy to pay yours, I am only too happy to pay mine.

---

Could you explain what you mean by this statement. If it some sort of veiled suggestion that I have ever raped a woman you have now completely made the point for not changing the burden. You need proof to convict people of serious violent crimes. Being a man is not proof I or any other specific man has committed a rape or sexual abuse.

I still think that in theory we all want every perpertrator of violence against others to face severe criminal sanctions. That has always been and will always be a dilema for people who also are wary of the state being able to send an individual to jail without full disclosure of the case against them.

Is Babble Male-Dominated?

Gender equality in sexual assault cases

Rape Relief Defeated

Body Image, self consciousness, and unsolicited "flattery"

Oh where oh where has the feminism forum gone?

Feminazis

How has porn negatively affected you?

Guns and rape

Guns and rape

Guns and rape

Guns and rape

Guns and rape

quote:

---

Why do Canadians rape more? It's not our love affair with condoms

---

Getting back to the rape and guns thing

[ 15 June 2007: Message edited by: writer ]